Pages

Monday, January 30, 2012

This email arrived in my mailbox. A local, unidentified group has a petition sign-up site on Change.org. One of its aims seems to be, perhaps, to try to wake up the Board of Supervisors, which is futile, since they don’t care. For them, this is a long-done-deal that is now mercifully off their desks. Heck, the district’s own Supervisor had to be dragged, kicking and screaming to even make the most feeble of attempts to try to get a zero-interest State Revolving Loan – couldn’t be bothered to even lobby for it, except as an afterthought so the attempt failed. Which means the monthly cost for this project will be higher than it needed to be. Or, perhaps the intent of the petition is to wake up the Feds, who also don’t care? You gonna lose your home because you can’t afford a $200 a month sewer bill? Take a number and get in line with the millions who are also going to out on the street with their underwater homes.

Well, it will be interesting to see how many signatures this site can get. Last chance to shake a fist, I suppose. Next stop: Economic Cleansing. A chance for capital rich bargain hunters to move in and make a bundle. It will take a period of extraordinary economic pain and dislocation, but dear old Los Osos, my Beloved Bangladesh by the Bay, is slated to be transformed into a new Carmel by the Sea. Which is what happens to all seaside communities in California. It’s the American Way.

The email:

Dear Friends,

A petition to stop the planned industrial gravity flow Los Osos waste water system has just been created: Stop The Most Expensive Per Capita Sewer In The US - The Los Osos Sewer!, going to San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors and State and Federal Officials: As most of you know, this sewer is not needed and will make the water supply in Los Osos less sustainable. We are also sincerely concerned for the economic plight of families, individuals, retirees, businesses and job stability in our community and county from the impact of the $190 million Los Osos Sewer. This is the most expensive sewer per capita in the United States.

To convince decision makers the community is concerned and it's not just a handful of people, there is a petition on Change.org that every time someone signs the online petition a copy goes to 16 officials including the 5 members of the Board of Supervisors, 3 members of the Coastal Commission, administrators with the USDA who loaned around $80 million, Lois Capps, Senators Boxer and Feinstein and the State Water Regional Control Board.

To show your support of this movement please sign the petition this weekend and send the link to friends and ask them to sign right away.

Please help make a difference, let these officials know of your concern for the economic stability of our community and our county.

The time is urgent, the $300 a month sewer expense awaiting us all is not a given, not if we do something to show concern for the many families who will be displaced and challenge many's ability to provide for themselves and/or their family.

Thank you for reading, PLEASE FORWARD TO YOUR EMAIL LISTS or post on your Facebook page!

What a horrible abuse of and misuse of Change.org. It is ironic that the enviros signing this petition won't answer the question:

If you can't use the upper aquifer - where there is plenty of water, then what's the plan? You don't want to import, you don't want to pay for clean water then what?

There are many, many enviros that support a sewer.

The fear of gentrification is not a good enough reason to subject your neighbors who want to try to keep their houses, keep the sewer and live in peace to this sort of shenanigans. Who does this to people?

It's crazy and appalling and I hope someone starts a petition against the petition. Maybe in my free time of working and taking care of kids and planning for my future I'll start to worry about the sewer, or maybe not.

"-my Beloved Bangladesh by the Bay, is slated to be transformed into a new Carmel by the Sea. Which is what happens to all seaside communities in California. It’s the American Way."

Actually, it's the "way" of supply and demand. Happens all over the world. Not much supply, lots of demand for California coastal property. I suppose if there was no Coastal Commission, towns would sprout up all over the coast, alleviating the affordability problem until the population was larger and supply and demand caught up again.

Does Gary Freiberg, whose website is instigating the petition, REALLY think this will DO anything? If so, which part of the message in "We Delay, We Pay" did not resonate? Forgotten your history so soon? Think the majority of LO citizens wants to try to stop yet another sewer project? I guess we'll see just how many signatures they get. It is interesting to see the names of those who have signed. And I guess you don't have to live here to sign it either. I wonder how much "weight" that will carry?

If the petition is simply to vent displeasure, fine, but then it might have been prudent then to word it THAT way, rather than, "Protect revenue to county schools and public services, please sign the petition to stop the $190 MILLION borrowing and spending of the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors. Don't Build The Los Osos Sewer!," which is just a waste of pixels. This petition will NOT stop the sewer!

Exactly. The first issue for me is, what do you do about the Water Board? I doubt they will just say, "You stopped ANOTHER project? Fine, go ahead and pick something else." Last time a stoppage occurred, we got CDOs and NOVs. So far, all lawsuits to stop the Water Board have failed miserably. I'd like to see how this group would address that issue.

The County is the only entity that could do anything about this. Do they think the County will just change direction to a technology that was not chosen by those paying for a project? I just don't get this at all! Another "No Plan" sewer? I think NOT!

Despite stillborn efforts like the petition, I think the community should know that every legal effort is being made on behalf of thousands of innocent residents to stop the County's sewer.

And I believe those efforts will prove successful. So do others who care.

Residents are intentionally kept in the dark about what's really happening (with their sewer) because the County doesn't want the community to see ANY crack of light at the end of the tunnel. But there is light.

The County doesn't want you to know that they have run into a few problems that will delay the project.

Will the delay lead to an altered project? It's looking more likely every day.

No LO activist can take credit for the delay, though some will, of course. But the County didn't need any help at all. None at all. They did it to themselves, yet again!~

The creativity of wishful thinking never ceases to amaze me—that and the desire to scare/instill hope in people where none is warranted. There is something very dark in that, and this screed above is all about the writer, not reality.

Hope the county doesn't have to use the assessments to pay to defend. Hope that those filing will pay court fees and those that want to pay for a sewer get to pay for the sewer and not for the inane and exhaustive behavior of, what is the name/new acronym now with the word "citizen" in it?

One Annonymouse seems to be hinting that the county plans are running into some problems that will delay or alter the sewer project. If that's true, we'll all have to hope that the county will move heaven and earth to fully implement the Sustainability Group's proposals for water conservation: total toilet retrofits, water saving re-fits, etc. full-bore, massive efforts for the whole community, not just the PZ.(something that should have been undertaken a couple of years ago, at least) Otherwise, we're all gonna be in a whole lotta no-water trouble.

Another Annonymouse asks the eternal question of all "protest" votes: If not this project, what alternatives?

Doing nothing is not an option. From nothing, there are all kinds of options, but most of those options will only work with rational, sane science (which would leave out the RWQCB's Mad Hatter Humpty-Dumpty World and that will never happen)and will always be constrained by costs, and (non-spun) community preferences,which again limits those options.

So Anon 10:33 AM, you are saying all the other stop-the-sewer attorneys were dopes? And you mean to say some NEW moneybags has stepped up to fund this? Where were they lo, these many years, that have transpired between 83-13 and now?

OK, what is your plan then? Ann asked the question earlier this AM, you must have seen that post, but no answer from you.

It is a big hope of many that those fortunate few with a clever attorney will be willing to foot the legal bills in their entirety and stop using the lure of millions and millions in assessment funds to pay for the travesty. You file - we pay - where do you think the defense fees come from? You think it's ok to brag about wasting peoples hard earned tax dollars because you want to see some fireworks! What a kick in the pants that is! I must ask again, what kind of person does that to their neighbors in light that much of it is based on false info? I bet that attorney sees the millions in assessments as nice potential fodder, clever and cunning is right! Sue, ask for attorneys fees or get a settlement. No attorney is taking this on because they are clever, they are taking it on because they have something to gain. Some people never learn. You do realize you won't get anything from a settlement right? Or do you think you'll get a payout like some of your friends did when BWS "settled" cases for the CSD?

What you meant to say was how that Cambria attorney Cynthia Hawley got stiffed by one of those acronym anti-sewer groups for her fees, right? There won't be any CSD to pay for PZLDF-type cases this time either. So when you don't win, who pays the fees? You?

Please leave your attorney's name so that we can look up the case. It must be filed in SLO County Superior Court and it would be great to read and share with the community to know how their assessment dollars are going to be wasted.

I suppose the argument could be made that if enough people invest their sewer assessment funds in stopping a sewer instead of paying their assessment they could gamble and pay an attorney instead and maybe it would be cheaper in the short term.

Still waiting Anon 10:33 AM on that "clever attorney" so Judith Reilly and I can call him up and harness him and then call the state bar and get him disbarred and then find out where his kids work in the Baskins Robbins and get him fired and get the manager fired and then puncture his tires so he drives off the highway and is killed and his family is...

Great point Ann. The "clever attorney" must be available to those of us inadvertently paying for this lawsuit so those that don't want to participate but want a sewer will know how to defend themselves against the repercussions of stopping yet another funded sewer project.

My suggestion is that people start drinking only bottled water. With sea water intrusion and leaking of upper aquifers into lower, sea water intrusion is the least of my concerns. Until the upper aquifer starts getting flushed with tertiary treated water, and it starts to clean up - I wouldn't drink anything coming out of the ground right now. Los Osos is a superfund site. Screw testing the wells, test the soils in the 30 year old leach fields and the area around them. If you want to shut down a well you test the water. If you want to know what's really leaching into your water test the soil!!!

But of course you can't get people on board with that - it wouldn't stop a sewer it would absolutely, undeniably prove we are living on a layer of crap. Maybe the first test should be the Monarch Grove Elem playing field - leach field and playground!

Oh we will be paying. We always do! Why? Because a case against the County requires the county to defend us, that want a sewer, and the only funds available are our sewer assessments. There is no other funding mechanism.

I suppose the other scenario is for another group to organize and sue your group for suing the county and wasting our assessments but that was done and the community went bankrupt. Well played!! Are you trying to bankrupt the county too? Well you enjoy and hope that there is nothing fraudulent in you filing because now there are federal funds committed and it's not a joke. Maybe to you, but not to the rest of us.

If you are still in developing your case could you please ask your attorney to request that general funds be used and not our assessments so that we won't be paying that in addition to the one from 2001.

I find the selfishness and arrogance of this lawsuit appalling. Every single lawsuit against a sewer in Los Osos has FAILED, yet was sold to us with the same bravado that we see here. This has cost the community time, money and our water resources have suffered badly, inching us closer to Nacimiento water with each passing year. Then there is the emotional toll of the people with the CDOs, which will be in the mail for the entire community if the project is stopped. Not even the courtesy of a single plan for "what's next?" is coming out to bolster a reason for this lawsuit.

You know, it sounds like a plot to ensure that all middle and lower income people will be tossed out for good, as that has what has happened so far, more and more people will be unable to stay as each new sewer is proposed.

Attorneys name please and potential filing date? Too bad you are wasting all your money on fighting the sewer instead of developing a low income assistance fund. Must be nice to have money to burn on court costs. Are you a 1%-er? No one I know has those kinds of resources or would ever consider taking on this sort of loser lawsuit and compromise their children's ability to go to college; go on vacation; taking the dog to the vet; robbing their neighbors of a much needed infrastructure as their property values continue to be compromised.

The County proposed 'pipe dream' for Los Osos won't work sustainably in our high groundwater environment unless they dig deeper and costlier, and they know it.

CDM has recognized this fact and now offer us an 'experimental collection system' which will result from their lab experiment, not yet tried in the real world that I can find.

CDM clearly stated " If water conservation goals are to be realized, and design flow generation criteria are changed to 50 gpd from 69 gpd, there will be 28% less flow and pipes are less likely to flow 1/2 full, decreasing flow-velocities. To move less flow faster, slopes must be increased or friction factors decreased to avoid solids deposition (San Francisco smelly fiasco).

There are multiple ways to address this issue they suggest-in the design; increase slopes (more costly, they state), decrease pipe diameters (not recommended under 8", they state) and decrease friction.

To accomplish the latter they recommend we adopt their 'experimental program' using a lower Manning "n" factor (or slippery pipe) to make the flatter-than-normally recommended system that uses huge amounts of water to work properly.

What they fail to mention, or obviously even considered, is the known fact that flatter-than-normally necessary flow velocity encourages & increases greater slime growth. Slime buildup is not a function of the pipe material, but rather, the type of effluent, flow depth and velocity. Evidence of this is the fact that plastics are promoted for and used as biological filter media for which slime adherence is a 'prime' requisite. Rather than decrease the Manning's "n" factor this, rather expensive experiment, will in fact only increase the "n" factor.

Minimum flow velocities are required to maintain self-cleaning. Flattening the necessary slope we need with our low-flush toilets using an experimental, hope the hell it will work in the field system, that encourages slime build-up, is a huge unaffordable gamble. The low-velocity will in fact result in longer detention times and 'increase' the probability of hydrogen sulfide gas generation up through the 850 manholes all over town. Hydrogen sulfide gas not only stinks, but is dangerously toxic. Not much sanity in our County planned sanitary sewer system plan.

It is for the aforementioned reason and the many other already (civilly discussed) sustainable & affordable reasons that I wholeheartedly signed the subject petition and also encourage other to do so.

Another dam good reason to sign the petition is the County 's blatant refusal to review the upcoming (Free) Seismic 3D Data, from the PG&E collection survey of our critical water basin.

The results of the seismic data analysis will be shared with the community over the next year as the data is processed and interpreted with planned seismic studies, according Hamner, Jewell & Associates letter dated December 20, 2011, to residents that participated.

Even our local Supervisor agrees and clearly stated it's 'crucial' that when seismic studies are complete, the public needs to know .

According to the Watershed Institute study we need a better hydrological investigation at the Broderson site to dispel the uncertainties like "can we dispose of 448 acre feet per year without an adverse impact"? Also, "Can the site provide the desired recharge benefits to the groundwater upper and lower aquifers and to wetlands"?

Will the PG&E 3D study serve as a tool to better understand our groundwater flow and give us the true 'big picture' of our water movement, thisSubject was a serious concern of the late Dr. Rohr, the hydrologist. A recent 3D model of groundwater flow was just recently released in the Denver Basin aquifer.

Blind Thrust Faults are a serious concern as indicated in the LHMP. The huge Northridge and the recent San Simeon quakes were both produce by blind faults.

Both Gibson and Blakeslee know better, but don't seem to have the political will, probably because they don't pay the bill.

FOGSWAMP, can you please point us to your reference when you state, "CDM has recognized this fact and now offer us an 'experimental collection system' which will result from their lab experiment-." It would be appreciated by more than just me.

"Evidence of this is the fact that plastics are promoted for and used as biological filter media for which slime adherence is a 'prime' requisite. Rather than decrease the Manning's "n" factor this, rather expensive experiment, will in fact only increase the "n" factor.And what is your degree in to make such a statement. The SAME plastic is used both places? Can you cite your reference for that please? Thank you!

Why no answer to who the "clever attorney" is? If the retainer is paid there should be no fear.

Since when did Fogswamp become and engineer educated on slope calcas and flow? Oh yeah, a website. Another arm chair educated sewer aficionado on all things sewerish. Cite your credentials and the credentials of who you cite. Your neighbors deserve to know why they should believe you and those whom you speak for. Be brave, honest and true. And, if you only are citing the rhetoric of some "group think therefore it's true..." be honest. Do you know or do you think you know this to be the truth and if you know this to be the truth than cite where this situation of which you speak has happened before. As again, your neighbors deserve the truth.

Since the sewer is in the hands of the County and it IS going ahead, (despite silly petitions and vacant threats of a lawsuit) and, most importantly, we have agreed to pay for it, I agree with the Anon above. I don't see how protesting the attempted stopping of the project makes this political. These threats seem to me to go beyond that into the territory of a seditious act, meant to destroy what the people have agreed to in a compact with the County. Those of us defending the project are also defending our property AND our water supply. This is especially true as there is NO alternative to changing the project.

One of you Anons, tell us what you plan to do about the Water Board. Having a NOV is bad enough. You are attempting to hand me a CDO on a platter. That sucks.

What I see here is a disintegration of civility. Okay, so I'm Anonymous, right? A general rule of thumb on the Internet is to take what "Anonymous" says with a grain of salt. Take my opinion with a grain of salt, but if someone mentions the words "clever" and "attorney," all bets are off! That's extremely ridiculous, and you people should be ashamed of yourselves for placing so much importance on what some Anonymous person says.

The reality is: the petition will not solve anything. While Freiberg may have good intentions going in, Los Osos is not at the "stopping" phase. We have a sewer, and people want this sewer to be in Los Osos so that the town can evolve out of its antiquated septic environment. What this discussion should be about is the sewer itself: what happens now? Where do we go from here? How can it be possible to make the project more affordable?

I read the articles about Sewertoons, Judith, and all those people, but it's not particularly relevant except in the fact that these people continue to protest those who are protesting the sewer without disclosing their special interests, and the way they negatively impacted the community. The way they hijack discussions tell me that they are unable to have this discussion offline in a public forum -- and that's sad.

Personally, I think very little of these people. They don't mean anything to anyone in Los Osos, as far as I'm concerned.

Lynette and Judith, you are fired. You two are disgusting human beings. You are fired. You think you can insult people like FOGSWAMP because he uses things like "facts." You are fired. You think sewer isn't politics? Wow. You are fired. Both of you are jokes, and an embarrassment to the County of San Luis Obispo. You are fired. Take your pink slip, and get lost.

To sanctimonious anon: Anyone starting a petition to stop the sewer at this point has one intention, to stop the sewer. How that can be quantified as a "good" intention is beyond intelligent comprehension.

Your assertion that others not disclosing their special interests is an accusation without merit and is exactly why people don't have discussions publicly.

Even by saying that "they don't mean anything to anyone in Los Osos" is just flat out rude. You have made a couple of good points about focusing energy and the rest of your post comes of as one long finger wagging post.

Things like this silly little petition are the exact same tactics that put LO in the position it is in today so being a little concerned about the impacts of this type of behavior are valid.

sanc·ti·mo·ni·ous:Adjective: derogatory. Making a show of being morally superior to other people.

Placing yourself in the omnipotent position of whether people have "good" intentions or not -- while establishing your opinions and your worldview being exclusively "good" -- is sanctimonious. Labeling people like FOGSWAMP, who has done nothing but provide factual analysis of the LOWWP, as "another arm chair educated sewer aficionado on all things sewerish" is sanctimonious.

Very, very hypocritical -- so much so that your opinions really do not matter. That's the basis of my opinion, "They don't mean anything to anyone in Los Osos, as far as I'm concerned." The only caveat I left out is: they only mean something to people who peddle hate for sport.

Both you and Lynette (I know it's you, Judith. C'mon) organized fundraisers for Taxpayers Watch. When the post-recall board tried -- albeit miserably -- to get a project going, your non-profit association filed lawsuits in an attempt to stop that board and cripple them financially. So when you opine about "stopping" the project and how bad that would be, you fail to disclose to readers about your attempts to stop the project. If your association's lawsuits were really about public waste and conflict of interest, you had enough time on statute of limitations to file after the board set up the RFPs for the project, but you filed almost immediately after the post-recall board was sworn in.

Your arrogance is unjustified. You really should consider moving. People know who you are, what you do, and why you're doing it. If you don't leave soon, karma will put you underwater. You should know the feeling. Your house was already flooded a few times. Continue to post your nastiness, and expect a tsunami.

Anon 11:12 AM, please explain how politely asking someone, FOGSWAMP in this case, to provide their SOURCE material for assertions that they make is WRONG? Really, that is the first question ANYONE should ask. It was certainly asked innumerable times by those opposed to the sewer. Why is it suddenly WRONG here?

Speaking of which, when that person DOES NOT respond, it puts their assertions in doubt as to their veracity.

Let me just ask you, had Taxpayers' Watch prevailed, would we be paying as much for this sewer? (Hint: $154 million vs. $189 million. The former to be paid over twenty years, the latter to be paid over 30 and 40 years.) The answer? NO. Would we have CDOs and NOVs against our homes? NO. Would we have a $25,000 lien placed on our homes? NO. Would the CSD be bankrupt? NO.

The recall and Measure B was a gamble. A 20 vote gamble that the sewer could be changed.

So here we are. The people still wanted a gravity collection system - so SAME collection system to the new project. (The STEP salesmen did as poor a job on selling that as the Lisa boa did.) The plant is now out of town, AND as an added penalty due to the gross fumbling of the Lisa board, our water supply is further damaged for YEARS by lacking adequate water conservation measures—due to having no project to pay for the ones that would have made a difference. Are you happy with that? Was it worth it? It wasn't to me.

On November 2, 2011, the State unveiled their new version of how to handle crap without sewers in Sonoma County, sorta revising the one-size-fits-all former version of AB885, which created much angst among the locals in small towns and along the river.

Now they must determine where pollution actually comes from and gather 'total daily maximum loads' (TMDLs) information., Then the septic tank owners are identified in a new 4-Tier system.

"Tier 0" is interesting. If the system is not polluting, the owner only need to get on board with the maintenance program, something we could have done here 30 years ago, and even today for very little, and keep millions of dollars in the community with local purveyors.

The Sonoma County Gazette (January 8, 2011) explains it well.

Toons ....... Sorry for not answering your questions, 'I've been out of town'.

Found on SLO County LOWWP Home Page: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/PW/LOWWP.htm

November 15, 2011: Basis of Design Report for the collection system final design completed by CDM and accepted by County. Read the report.

Link doesn't work. Maybe that's why FOGSWAMP is not able to provide it to you. But your persistence to demand something that is clearly visible on the LOWWP frontpage is, well, a little odd -- and then have your friend Judith berate him for not having "credentials."

Toons ....... In reply to your request, please read 'Section 5a - Approach to technical Redesign Issues in said CDM Report'. I believe you may find it interesting.

With respect the "Slimy Issue". I found that much detailed and supportive information has been written about the accumulation of that pesky bacterial slime in collection pipes and their significant effect on flow resistance should the flow velocity be lowered.

Contrary to the "Hogwash" persons remark, the vast amount of studies are easily comprehended by non-technical personnel, providing of course, that one takes the time to research & read.

It seems that there is much ado written by both manufacturers of Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) and Plastic Pipe, touting theirs and condemning the other.

The wording I presented was from 'Buried Facts Plastic Pipe Claims', presented by the American Concrete Pipe Association. Interesting & informative read.

I found that there are many studies to support the fact that the accumulation of slime has a negative effect on flow resistance.

Check out the "Discussion: Flow resistance of wastewater pumping mains" by Dr D. Hansen from Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. I particularly like the way he starts out;

"If at all possible. Civil engineers will avoid the use of sewage lift-stations in the first place. As a design option they have been likened to "Burying your father in a rented suit" because at no future point in time does the obligation of the municipality to operate such stations cease. The electricity bill must be paid and the stations must be maintained, in perpetuity".

"Part of the annual energy cost is caused by the necessary to overcome the hydraulic resistance.........because of build-up of organic slime on the inside of the pipe, a buiid-up that changes both the apparent absolute roughness (e) of the inner wall and the inside diameter (D) of the main".

Other studies on plastic pipe state that the manning's n varies with depth and weight due to pressure flattening out of round and sagging. Things that may not be taken in account in the lab.

Hi FOG, thank you for the very detailed answer. Now I am trying to find the correct document. What I found was "Basis of Design Report - Los Osos Wastewater Collection System Project October 24, 2011 CDM"at this link:

I can't find the reference to "5a" in this, or the reference that you make (here in italics), "CDM has recognized this fact and now offer us an 'experimental collection system' which will result from their lab experiment, not yet tried in the real world that I can find."

Where can I find that information on the experimental collection system?

I found and read both articles, the one dissing plastic pipe far more readable than the Dr. Hansen one, that was pretty heavy-duty. Yes, they were interesting, thank you.

But the question remains, this is what we are getting and will have - plastic pipe, with lower flows. Guess the slime crews will be busier and they will be happy for job security. Just as the septic pumping companies will be less busy and bummed due to the decommissioning of tanks.

Although the focus of this example is on combined systems, many of the same modeling elements it employs (wastewater inflows, pump stations, and force mains) can also be used to model separate sanitary sewer systems.

(See also page 12 for the introduction.)

Below you will find a link to downloads of the 11 versions of this modeling software which was first developed in 1971:

It has been around a long time and used many places. I'm too lazy to research the other one mentioned, InfoSWMM, but the reason they are using the software is (back to the page 66 above):

The model will help identify the pipeline reaches that do not achieve a satisfactory cleansing velocity at least once a day under either flow generation scenario. This will enable us to quickly and efficiently focus our efforts in addressing problem areas.

Really, I think your fears should be put to rest. They aren't going to let stuff sit in the pipes and fester.

Lynette - you stated "I think your fears should be put to rest", however you bring absolutely nothing to the table that would put any sane persons brain to rest.

The 'model' you refer to, has been around for a coons age and has proven over & over again that a minimum slope/velocity is required "let the stuff sit in the pipe and fester".

The results of the aforementioned are readily available and printed/adopted by engineers/cities across the nation. Read the Bureau of Engineering Manual - Part F - Sewer Design parts - F251, F252 & F253.

F252 - Manning's Roughness Coefficient "n" = 0.014 shall be used for sizing gravity pipes. this Manning'sRoughness coefficient shall be used 'regardless of the type of pipe specified'.

f253 - Minimum Slope - gravity sewers shall be designed for minimum velocity of three feet per second.

Low flush toiiets & the resulting low flow gravity sewage collection system, is a relatively new problem that came about around 1994 when federal law required "low flow" toilets which created a larger stinky problem as in San Francisco.

Why do we need a 'model' to identify the pipelines that will not achieve a satisfactory cleansing velocity under any flow generation, using low-flow toilets?

It comes across as just another unnecessary studyto generate a greater 'cash flow' for CDM, because they have already told us in writing that a Gravity Collection System will not work sustainably unless we dig deeper and costlier.

Let me amplify: CDM wants to avoid making the project more costly by going deeper, paragraph 3, page 66. Hence running the models to locate only the places that need help. We don't know what those modifications will be yet.

FOG, the document that you cite is a proposal and that is what I am talking about. They claim in that proposal that they are eliminating some pump stations. Nowhere does it say they are digging deeper EVERYWHERE, only, possibly, the places that the modeling will show there could be a problem. They are avoiding that as much as they can just as they are avoiding using grinder pumps as much as they can - because like STEP, the cost burden shifts from the project onto the property owner.

Please show me in that document where they say they are adding the pump stations.I see where they are eliminating two and possibly even two more.

The "gravity-glazed" I believe you refer to are actually the people in the PZ who responded in the survey in favor of gravity. Guess having the already ratty streets torn up was preferable to having their yards torn up?

Weird-o. Wonder how long it will be before we get another erudition regarding the importance of civility as long as it doesn't come from someone "they" don't like. Completely ok though to put taunts,baits and bullocks out there like this. That's the royal shaft.

Calhouns Can(n)ons

About the Can(n)ons

Calhoun's Can(n)ons was originally published in 1990 in the (now defunct) Morro Bay, CA, Sun Bulletin, and since 1992 has continued in the various resurrections of the Los Osos, CA. Bay News, Bay Breeze, Bay News, Bay News-Tolosa Press. A few years ago, the Can(n)on was added to the Central Coast NewsMission blogsite. Ann Calhoun lives in Los Osos. You can email her at Churadogs at gmail dot com

To be persuasive, we must be believable. To be believable, we must be credible. To be credible, we must be truthful. Edward R. Murrow

It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; the essential is invisible to the eye.Antoine de Saint-ExuperyThe Little Prince

No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the misfortune is to do it solemnly. Montaigne